Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by SurfDude


1. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184306 by SurfDude on May 24, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Alan Canon's post seems to have been removed. What a shame. At least I managed to copy the relevant bits at the end.

2. The Faith of Flanders

Comment #184305 by SurfDude on May 24, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Alan Canon

Let's not lose sight of what we're doing. Religious people, and the yet-unborn ghosts who might become religious, need our help. We should not be in the business of condemning minds, but of liberating them, or demonstrating a proper, logical path to liberation.

I agree very strongly with Richard Dawkins that the "moderate, good" religious like Ned Flanders make it safe for the extremists. But while we should be strident on the public stage and in public conversation (I'm wearing my scarlet A pin as I write), shouldn't we be privately gentle and respectful of people, if not their ideas?


Thank you for your excellent comment. You managed to describe my own mother to a T and the above quote should merely be underlined.

3. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182568 by SurfDude on May 20, 2008 at 2:27 pm

3legcat:

actually ken miller was making the exact opposite point, that religions are man made and thus are fallible. that "organized(by humans) religions" have problems doesn't preclude belief in god.


No wasn't. He was saying that to disbelieve because of the flaws in religion was akin to blah physics blah QM blah. What I was pointing out was that the above statement is a red herring because almost no-one disbelieves for this reason. Miller made a clumsy category error by lumping all disbelievers into the above group (at least in his own mind anyway). Hence his pathological cognitive dissonance.

4. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182307 by SurfDude on May 19, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Teratornis:

Miller's error is in setting us up with the red herring of equating religion with belief in god(s). Thence comes his equally fallacious analogy with physics.

To the best of my knowledge, the vast majority of atheists / non-believers / anti-dogmatists do not believe in god(s) simply because there is no (reliable, testable) evidence whatsoever to support such a position. It has nothing to do with the failings of any given religion.

Theists will often switch allegiance from one church to another or even to another belief system altogether before they give up their mythical (or mystical) sky-daddy. One can also believe in a higher power without the need for any religious affiliation.

5. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182229 by SurfDude on May 19, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Kenneth Miller:

"... to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity."


Anyone else spot the rather glaring error in this reasoning?

Miller is the poster-child for cognitive dissonance.

6. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #179332 by SurfDude on May 13, 2008 at 6:04 am

Bobby G

You said: "... For instance, Aristotle has it that "man is a rational animal" but Dawkins holds that religious people are irrational. If you think religious people are irrational but you also believe that rationality is what separates us from most (if not all) animals, do you therefore think that religious people are not human?"


I think you are missing Prof Dawkins' point that it is religious belief itself which is irrational. The extent to which one person's belief can be more irrational than another's is neither here nor there. The fact is that all humans are rational animals when it comes to their day-to-day living e.g. shopping, eating, working etc, but that where there is a gap in knowledge / understanding vis-a-vis ascribing a so-called "purpose" to their lives, cognitive dissonance sets in and people will often believe in the most ridiculous nonsense as long as it gives comfort.

7. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172019 by SurfDude on April 29, 2008 at 6:36 am

It's the bit at the end that has me the most annoyed:

"The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science."

What a pile of horseshit. The existence of god(s) is a binary one - yes, or no. No equivocation required. There is no middle ground - and that is the crux of the matter; wishy-washy theists like Lord Winston occupy the same side of the argument as the extremists whether they like it or not.

In any case, since when was a belief in god(s) ever rational?

8. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165125 by SurfDude on April 21, 2008 at 5:08 am

Can someone explain to me how it is that only the truly ignorant are arrogant enough to claim possession of the truth? I got a little taste of bile in my mouth whilst reading this drivel.

9. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164787 by SurfDude on April 20, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Goldy,
I agree it would. I smell a McGrath type of sophistry just waiting to be eviscerated.

10. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155437 by SurfDude on April 4, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #155433 by Artful_Dodger :
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html


Thanks Artful, that should be very interesting.

Read this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html

11. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155395 by SurfDude on April 4, 2008 at 12:30 pm

All this talk about Pascal's Wager is becoming rather tedious. I wonder if it had occurred to anyone that were there indeed a god(s) (bear in mind that he/she/it/they could well NOT be any of the ones worshiped throughout the very very short history of humanity) the only people that would likely be chosen to ascend into an eternity of bliss would be .... atheists?

"The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html

(I know it's been posted here before, but to those who have not read it I urge you to - it is devastating)

12. Beware the Believers

Comment #153343 by SurfDude on April 1, 2008 at 12:06 pm

398. Comment #153075 by VanVoorst on April 1, 2008 at 2:15 am

The here is a link to YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0f-2Tit5Fg


I love all the over-analysis and this is just going to make it worse!

Bravo to whoever is behind this. And once again, I will reiterate that the original video was da bomb, fo shizzle my brutha. (p.s. use of the rap vernacular is kind of the point of this, for those that don't "get" it).

p.s. I am 44, a lover of all music, and think some rap is exceptionally creative

13. Beware the Believers

Comment #152117 by SurfDude on March 30, 2008 at 7:10 am

Ok, I have watched this video at least 5 times now and finally saw fit to comment.

I showed it to my girlfriend, who I would describe as being representative of the "regular" atheists, i.e. both parents atheists, good education without dogma, thinks religion is stupid and almost never gives it a second thought. Additionally, of the prominent atheists / scientists featured in the video, she has only heard of Richard Dawkins. Even though she does not particularly like rap she found the piece amusing and once I had explained to her who each of the characters depicted were (and their context), she thought it was pretty cool - and pro-science and pro-rationality.

For myself, I agree with her and thought it was very funny, in particular the incongruity of the characters and the use of rap iconography (big $$ necklaces and Sam Harris with a grill - priceless).

14. EXPELLED!

Comment #147781 by SurfDude on March 21, 2008 at 8:37 am

Thanks CanadAdam,

I didn't take a close look, just posted as a knee-jerk reaction. It would be interesting nevertheless to find out who is seeding the fakes...

Back on topic though ..

MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

15. EXPELLED!

Comment #147762 by SurfDude on March 21, 2008 at 7:58 am

http://btjunkie.org/search?q=expelled

I have not downloaded it yet, but it appears that there is already a torrent of this excrement.

Have fun!

16. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142123 by SurfDude on March 12, 2008 at 3:22 am

"god is trivial compared to this."

And also superfluous.

17. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #139355 by SurfDude on March 5, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Al-rawandi,

You are of course correct about Indonesia. The purpose of the US's support was anti-communist, but the by-product (in that country) was to keep the theocrats at bay (as it did in Iraq while Saddam was the West's best friend).

On-topic - Islam and democracy are uneasy bedfellows.

18. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #139123 by SurfDude on March 5, 2008 at 7:01 am

Sent2null

"One set of crackpots going crackpot over another crackpots use of a (now cracked) pot! "

Thanks for the giggle :)))

19. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #139121 by SurfDude on March 5, 2008 at 6:59 am

Many Islamic countries have toyed with some sort of secular democracy. Turkey has relied on a strong military to uphold Kemal Attaturk's original ideals. The carrot of the EU and close proximity to Europe in general should maintain the status quo for some time to come.

In Asia, Indonesia is only just now toying with the idea of democracy (but still led by the same sort of educated elite like Pakistan). Prior to that, it took decades of dictators to keep Islam away from "politics". I am uncertain for the future there, especially in majority Hindu Bali (one of my favourite places on Earth) where the Islamists are trying to open mosques next to every temple (Wahabbi money in the UK and US, anyone?).

On the other hand, Malaysia has always been a worry to me and I am alarmed to see that the Islamists are taking hold politically. What with the rather strange cultural setup where Moslems run the politics but are lazy and arrogant, while the ethnic Chinese are 2nd class citizens but make all the money, I see BIG problems brewing and it won't be pretty.

20. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120071 by SurfDude on February 1, 2008 at 8:31 am

Proof if any was needed that NOMA is bullshit.

21. The Repeater

Comment #118951 by SurfDude on January 31, 2008 at 7:59 am

"If you invest $10 a week, using compound interest, how much will you have after 10 years ? 50 years ? 100 years ?"

Put it this way: if you invested $10 a week for 10,000 years with compound interest at, say, 4% per annum, you would have the tidy sum of, ahem ....

$5.82 X 10^177

Inserting a million years into the equation would blow up my computer!

22. Atheism and Violence

Comment #118877 by SurfDude on January 31, 2008 at 5:30 am

Artful_Dodger:

Yes, but less and less so the longer I spend on this site. :-)


Close. What you meant to say was:

"Yes, but less and less so the longer I willfully ignore or completely misunderstand everything I read on this site."

23. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111251 by SurfDude on January 14, 2008 at 6:52 am

I think the most important part of Shermer's argument is the conclusion. Unoriginal they may be, but the either/or examples are merely rhetorical devices drawing the reader towards strong evidence suggesting that the loss aversion trait is hard-wired into our DNA.

This is yet more evidence that morality is inherited, not received - and it is being delivered in simple layman's language

24. It was a bad year for God.

Comment #109248 by SurfDude on January 8, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Veon,

I am curious to know what you were saved from and when you say "down" regarding God, is that a good thing?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.

25. A War On Science

Comment #105632 by SurfDude on January 1, 2008 at 10:29 am

Ugh, those Truth (sic) in Science bastards bring out a truly visceral reaction in me. Disingenuous, lying scumbags. They wouldn't recognise scientific truth if it kicked them in the nuts.

This sort of crap has got to be nipped in the bud right now.

26. Monkey, Business

Comment #105145 by SurfDude on December 30, 2007 at 5:54 pm

I will buy this book as I suspect the synopsis above is more than likely cherry-picking for convenience. I would be very surprised if Shermer hasn't fleshed out these points into something far more nuanced.

27. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #105142 by SurfDude on December 30, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Back to the life-raft.

I am inclined to think that the atheists facing certain death will end up in a long(ish) philosophical discussion and support each other with kind words. The old "no atheists in foxholes" chestnut is a load of old tosh.

The boat-load of theists will either hold hands and pray until the end, or start murdering each other (and somehow justifying it with some tortuous "logic"). Don't forget that the major religions are against euthanasia.

28. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104385 by SurfDude on December 28, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Ha! Nice one Sleep of Reason. I shall be sure to learn that one for the next time anyone is foolish enough to knock on my door ....

29. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104383 by SurfDude on December 28, 2007 at 11:58 am

Dr. Benway,
I really like your life raft analogy. Are you suggesting that there would be a difference in behaviour if the raft was filled solely with atheists or religionists? What if it were half/half? Or a potential worst case scenario, a mix of different religions?

30. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104376 by SurfDude on December 28, 2007 at 11:51 am

14. Comment #104364 by icanus

So the senior representative (who as part of the job gets to live in what is officially termed a palace) of one of the biggest land owners in britain, with an anual incomewell in excess of half a billion pounds, is denouncing human greed?
Since when have religions ever done anything more original than simply responding to the zeitgeist? Hypocrisy (and the associated cognitive dissonance) is a central requirement of all theism.

31. What We Believe: Atheism

Comment #104374 by SurfDude on December 28, 2007 at 11:45 am

This article should generate nothing more than a chorus of crickets from the theists.

32. Russia prohibits denial of Santa

Comment #104253 by SurfDude on December 28, 2007 at 8:03 am

I agree with icanus. I think the advert is insensitive and would surely be at the very least protested against here in the UK - if not banned outright by the ASA (advertising standards authority). I also happen to think that those protesting would be for the most part, secular.

Perhaps there is no equivalent functioning advertising standards body in Russia. I agree with their government stance on the issue.

33. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102997 by SurfDude on December 24, 2007 at 6:31 am

There they go - almost 50% of the scientific community worldwide written off with a single devastating blow of ananswerable logic from irate_atheist, and 90% of the scientific community prior to the 20th century.
Where does one begin with such barefaced nonsense. Please provide evidence that "almost 50%" of the worldwide scientific community are theists (and please don't include deists or Einsteinian pantheists). The ones that do believe will most likely admit that they do so without evidence and somehow grapple with their cognitive dissonance (a la Kenneth Miller).

You on the other hand are the scariest variety of faith-head, as you believe without seeing the inherently obvious (to a rational person) flaws in such thinking.

34. Was Muhammad Epileptic?

Comment #102857 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 7:01 pm

N-n-n-n-n-n-nineteen.
More mystical straw-clutching clap-trap.

Your (vaguely) interesting numerology aside, it still doesn't make anything in the Koran either a) true or b) in the least bit interesting. As books go, it's sadly rather dull and repetitive. There is a wealth of far more interesting literature out there waiting for you to discover it.

I find it rather sad that your whole (and only) life should be dedicated to one rather boring book.

35. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102850 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 6:37 pm

How do you answer the cutting edge of astronomy that points to a single moment where time and space and the universe came into existence, thus spawning intelligent design?
This is a breathtakingly inane inference.

We can have a coherent discussion about cutting edge cosmology if you wish (though I seriously doubt you know anything whatsoever about it), or we can discuss your ludicrous leap of faith making it point to a "designer". Why don't YOU back up your statement (which no reputable cosmologist would ever make)? Point me to a reputable peer-reviewed source please. It proves nothing and explains nothing, merely asks more questions than it tries to answer.

36. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102789 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Hell is separation from God your father for eternity. Hell is not a threat from Christ; it is a linguistic representation for a real place that is a consequence of your own choice. If you choose to reject Gods gift to fallen and depraved mankind, His redemptive loving work for his cherished humanity, then that is what God reluctantly gives you to respect your own free will. God doesn't demand that you follow him.

Utter, utter bollocks. This great, steaming turd of an argument deserves a special place among the pantheon of disingenuous and disgracefully immoral theistic drivel ever spewed.

You truly, honestly disgust me if you actually believe this arrogant self-aggrandising nonsense.

37. Taking children for a ride

Comment #102783 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 4:17 pm

The trouble with this kind of nonsense is that after it opens and the chorus of laughter dies down (as it inevitably does), they will still be there, staunchly immune to ridicule, trotting out their infantile agenda.

We don't treat cancer by laughing at it, we blast it with chemotherapy or simply cut it out whenever it surfaces. Creationism is a cancer and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

38. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102773 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Silent Mike,

It was a damn good joke! Perhaps all the fleas can sue each other for plagiarism?

In fact, I wonder if it would be possible for a bystander to institute a class action suit on behalf of all the fleas against each other? We can get Judge Jones to preside over the case.

39. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102751 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Steve Z,

I was referring to the multiple fleas, not fides "steps", but thanks for dealing with them anyway!

40. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102746 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 2:12 pm

fides-et-ratio,

You are trotting out the same points on every flea post. These multiple "critiques" (the fleas) are the publishing world's version of Dinesh D'sousa's scattergun approach to rationality, i.e. throw in so many non-sequiters in an argument that responding to them individually will take for ever.

On the other hand, it might be worth simply ignoring the more obscure ones (like this one) in order that they receive zero oxygen at all.

41. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102742 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Silent Mike,

Given the publication date, the reverse may even be true!

42. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102740 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 2:04 pm

I am at a loss to understand how this omnipotent, omniscient being appears to be so ill-equipped to defend itself.

I now understand the truth about "liars for Jesus". These morons are willfully mendacious - a tactic shared with Islam, where lying to the infidel is considered acceptable.

These people sicken me.

43. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102734 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 1:41 pm

It's reduced to $3.20 on amazon.com(and not even available from the .co.uk variant).

Says a lot about the popularity of this particular flea that there is only one review, and this one states:

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars "Bad logic", December 5, 2007

By: Dane Jasper (Santa Rosa, CA USA)(REAL NAME)
This is not a well written response, and not really worth the paltry $4 cost either.

44. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #102730 by SurfDude on December 23, 2007 at 1:29 pm

The perfect Xmas present for someone you really, really hate.

45. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #102348 by SurfDude on December 22, 2007 at 12:44 pm

The great bearded whale in the sky told us so!!
They probably worship humans. We certainly treat them badly enough to be considered as "gods".

46. 'Atheistic fundamentalism' fears

Comment #102296 by SurfDude on December 22, 2007 at 9:03 am

"God is not exclusive, he is on the side of the whole of humanity with all its variety"
Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan
Until they die that is, whenceforth all of the non-christians get to burn in hell for eternity.

47. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102115 by SurfDude on December 21, 2007 at 3:30 pm

No-one but the self-aggrandising D'souza himself would bother to wade through all these posts and then post rather predictably as his own -phile.

Alternatively, we are dealing with a Dinesh-bot, a sophisticated (sic) random bullshit generator.

48. For the Love of Christ

Comment #102108 by SurfDude on December 21, 2007 at 3:10 pm

41. Comment #101865 by Matt7895

I'm not a violent person, at all, but if this guy screamed in my face I'd be very tempted to whack him one.
Does it demean me to say that I would give in to the temptation immediately? I actually WANT this guy to try this crap on with me.

49. Good God! A politician who doesn't believe...

Comment #101988 by SurfDude on December 21, 2007 at 10:50 am

4. Comment #101911 by joeyoap on December 21, 2007 at 6:32 am

Well I think being asked if you believe in god may be a relevant question if your interview is for archbishop of canterbury.
Are you entirely sure about this?

50. This Week's Flea

Comment #101317 by SurfDude on December 20, 2007 at 8:16 am

74. Comment #100931 by Don_Quix

I like to think of myself as a "rational extremist" ;)
As a devout "extreme rationalist" I take exception to the above.

Rational extremist splitters.

More Pages: 1 2 | Next